In response to structural and ethics challenges the City of Los Angeles has faced in recent years, CCA released its Los Angeles City Governance Reform Report and takes note of the Ad Hoc Committee on Governance Reform taking up redistricting reform and the size of the City Council.

However, there has not been enough focus on an issue that is at the crux of recent power abuses and ongoing frustrations our members face with the City: land use reform.

CCA continues to advocate for reforms that will 1) de-politicize the approvals process, 2) provide greater clarity to those looking to do projects within the City – especially badly-needed development of new housing – and 3) restore confidence in City Hall.

Increasing Technical Expertise in the Discretionary Review Process

The City has outdated planning codes and community plans which do not match today’s development standards and needs. This means that housing providers must seek waivers and regulatory changes to build projects. This “discretionary review” process is treated as legislative action and means that the City Council votes on project approvals. While we believe that Councilmembers should still be a part of the process, the current scope of that power should be examined, and the City would be better served by including more objective, technical expertise to review and make decisions about projects. Based on models seen in other cities, options include:  

1. Setting the Director of Planning as the chair of the City Planning Commission, rather than the current advisory role.^C
2. Creating roles for academics and other experts to formally participate on the City Planning Commission and/or City Council or establish criteria for City Planning Commissioners that require expertise in the planning and land use field.^C
3. Allocating Council staff by committees and issue areas, rather than solely by individual Councilmembers.^R
4. Closely analyzing the duties of and relationship between the City Planning Commission and City Council in the discretionary approval process with potentially different review for project decisions versus policy decisions.^C

Formalizing the Discretionary Review Timeline  

Another issue with the discretionary review process is the lack of a clear timeline. Currently, the City Council can effectively continue consideration of projects in perpetuity, delaying hearings and votes. This opens the possibility for decisionmakers to use the threat of delay as a political tactic. The following changes would provide clarity and certainty for the community and applicants:

1. Automatically scheduling long-range policies for hearings at Council’s PLUM Committee and full City Council meetings instead of the discretion of the committee Chair and Council President.^O  
2. Setting hard time limits by which Council must act on projects and policies (while preserving the ability for applicants to continue or reschedule hearings).^O
3. Deeming projects automatically approved if the City Council fails to act within a specified timeframe.^O  

Adopting Enhancements

The recommended enhancements pertaining to the structure and roles of the City Council and the City Planning Commission (recommendations a, b and d) require amending the Charter. While those amendments are worthwhile, we recognize that the Charter amendment process necessitates due time and attention. However, other meaningful changes (recommendations c, e, f and g) are achievable by either a City Council Rules change or by ordinance.

Taking swift action in implementing changes that do not require a Charter amendment would go a long way in demonstrating to constituents that the City Council is actively working to depoliticize a process prone to contention and controversy. In addition to restoring faith in the project approval process, adopting these enhancements would help increase LA’s housing stock and aid in Downtown’s continued recovery. With its existing density, transit accessibility and world-class amenities, it is precisely the place to build more housing with great speed. 

CCA will continue to advocate for land use reform as a key part of the conversation in the broader discussions about City of LA governance reform. For more details on the recommendations above, read our Los Angeles City Governance Report here.